Posted on 08/16/2007 3:00:02 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Don’t ask him to produce a “peer reviewed” study. That would be hate speech.
You're even stupider than I thought.
Who do you think I am?
Specifics, please.
Amazing. Your mom had heart disease without smoking. Wow. I hope the medical people are aware that nonsmokers get heart disease too.
I even know someone that lived to be 90 and they smoked every day since they were 15 and did not have cancer or heart disease. That must mean that smoking doesn’t have any affect on cancer or heart disease /s
Absolutely! WHO and CRC contradicted their own findings. I wonder who can explain how ETS can be the cause of asthma when asthma is on the rise (50% increase), while smoking is on the decline by 80%? I agree that ETS can aggravate pre-existing respiratory diseases, but isn't the cause of them.
Excellent! That was exactly the story I thought you'd come up with.
Well then lets tell stuff....
I would estimate that something like less than 10% of my patients who were long term smokers have Cancer.
That was the good news.
The bad news is that I have an endless supply of patients who were/are smokers. I happen to be involved in a very sorry business.
We refer to them (our patients) as COPDers, and many of them are what we know as are "Retainers. (Not all COPDers are smokers, but for this comment, I'll shortcut...)"
Smokers, over a period of time so screw up their bodies that their brains have to adapt. Their chemoreceptors actually become somewhat dysfunctional, and so then the inability for their sympathetic nervous system to recognize insufficient levels of Oxygen can cause them to stop breathing.
It is interesting stuff, but you'll not get much more of a lesson out here from me.
Anybody stupid enough to inhale smoke in the first place is pretty much an imbecile in my opinion.
Do you really wish to engage here in this place and demonstrate more of your ignorance?
“Do you really wish to engage here in this place and demonstrate more of your ignorance?”
No doubt folks get COPD. And like you offered, some never smoked. Some were never even exposed to smoke and still got COPD. Is that ignorant? Or is it fact? Nevermind, you’ve already answered.
Can smoking cause health problems in some? I don’t doubt it. Do you work with some? You say you do, so I’ll just have to take your word for it. Have I worked with some? You’ll just have to take my word for it that I have been exposed to some of the same clinical situations as you.
Your situation now is to deal with the problem. It is not your business to seek to determine their lifestyle. Afterall, they are giving you meaningful work with a reasonable income.
The scariest people on the planet are those who seek to impose their will upon everyone else. This is exactly what islam intends to do.
Islam will do it by any means necesary including murder of the innocent. Teetotaling do gooders seek to hid behind the deputy. Their goals are the same as islam. To control behaviors. The only difference between them is their MO.
spoken like a true addict who puts their child at risk.
If you've been listening to Rush since you were 14, you must've had cotton in your ears to be able to type a sentence like that.
I'm sorry to hear about your health problems, but a sledgehammer is not the answer to the problem.
Yeah, I am a failure because I actually think that the "Care" in HealthCare has some sort of relevance.
I'd love to give you a stronger rebuke, and tear you up for your foolish waste of breath out here in this valley.
Alas, I'd be wasting my own breath on you, who posts as if you have you have no concern about what comes your way after the day you breathe for the last time.
Go on and take in air as if there is no tomorrow.
If you are of the mindset that you can cognitively debate important matters with me....well then,...take a number.
What question have you asked me that I haven't answered?
I will do my best to give you my answer.
I think that we understand each other quite well.
Go ahead, ask me.
I produced 43 of them already. I can produce more.
I cited the Relative Risk from them.
That's normally what you look for in a epidemiological study.
People can say what they want from their own agenda, the RR is done from the numbers.
Absolutely.
...but sometimes it does.
I assume in both instances you are talking about kids exposed to second hand smoke from their parents' smoking in cars. None of the studies on second-hand smoke exposure have considered lasting effects of parental smoking on kids who grow up to be non-smokers. It seems that all the second-hand smoke studies have dealt with (a) non-smoking mature adult spouses (generally wives) of long-time smokers or (b) older adults who worked in a smoky workplace for considerable periods of time.
In short, the matter of long-term health effects on adult children whose parents smoked in cars with them when they were kids has never been studied! For this New York City Dummycrat Counciljerk to even propose fining people for doing something that has not been shown to cause long-term injury to those whom they are allegedly trying to protect (their own children) is the height of nanny-state audacity! (If the subtrefuge of protecting the children is removed, the real motive for the proposal is to collect fine revenue for a city that already taxes the crap out of its citizens.) Americans have an historical right to be left alone by government, provided they are not causing serious injury to others. That's what Justice Louis Brandeis said in the 1920s Olmstead case. The problem is that these lefty politicos in places like New York don't think that they are part of America - until it comes time for federal government handouts, that is.
Lung cancer death rates, adjusted for other factors, were 20 percent higher among women whose husbands ever smoked during the current marriage than among those married to never-smokers (relative risk [RR] = 1.2, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 0.8-1.6). For never-smoking men whose wives smoked, the RR was 1.1 (CI = 0.6-1.8). Risk among women was similar or higher when the husband continued to smoke (RR = 1.2, CI = 0.8-1.8), or smoked 40 or more cigarettes per day (RR = 1.9, CI = 1.0-3.6), but did not increase with years of marriage to a smoker. Most CIs included the null. Although generally not statistically significant, these results agree with the EPA summary estimate that spousal smoking increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent in never-smoking women.
I'm not a scientist, but why does this study (the first one I looked at) support your side? I guess 'cause it's not statistically significant, but that's hardly an affirmation of your case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.